Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
02/29/2024 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Department of Law Fy 25 Budget | |
| Overview: Alaska Court System Fy 25 Budget | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 270 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 268
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making capital appropriations; making
supplemental appropriations; making reappropriations;
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 270
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF LAW FY 25 BUDGET
1:47:46 PM
TREG TAYLOR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
introduced himself and his staff. He began the PowerPoint
presentation "Department of Law FY 2025 Budget Overview"
dated February 29, 2024 (copy on file). He began on slide 2
titled "Mission:"
The Department of Law upholds the rule of law,
protects public safety, and provides high quality
legal representation to executive branch agencies for
the benefit of all Alaskans.
Attorney General Taylor read the mission of the Department
of Law. He continued to slide 3 which contained photographs
and titles of the Department of Law's (DOL) management team
and spoke of the team's continuity over the prior 3 years.
Attorney General Taylor moved to slide 4 titled "Department
of Law FY 2023 - FY 2025 Operating Budget Comparison." He
explained that the chart and graph provided an overview of
the operating budget over the years shown. He noted the
slight increase in the FY 2025 governor's request, which
represented multi-year statehood defense funds from FY
2023. Mr. Taylor addressed slide 5 titled "We See Things
Others Don't," which included a link to a video that
featured actual employees at the department talking about
the work done within the department. He related that the
purpose of the film was to explain the work of DOL. He
characterized the department as a resource to the public,
specifically the consumer protection division. He also
wanted the film to inspire others to work for the
department.
Co-Chair Johnson asked how long the video was.
1:51:59 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, relayed that the video was 15 minutes
but was cut down to 6 minutes for the purpose of the
presentation. [The film was not watched.]
Attorney General Taylor continued on slide 6 titled
Department's Request: Paid Interns:
State Position Description: Graduate Intern 2
Range 16: $4,570/month in Anchorage
Airfare: $750
Housing Stipend: $3,000
Partner with University of Alaska for rooms:
University gets stipend
District Attorney Offices (DAO) in Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Palmer, Juneau (southeast), Kenai, Bethel,
Nome, Kotzebue, Utqiagvik
Total 58 interns / 3 months: $1,072,800
Attorney General Taylor indicated that a large request for
the department was for paid interns. The era of unpaid
interns had ended, and the interns work was valuable for
DOL. However, the main purpose of hiring interns was to
attract future employees to the department. He noted that
half of the department's current leadership began as
interns as well as many others still working in the
department. He deferred to Mr. Skidmore to further expand
on the program.
Mr. Skidmore explained that the criminal division received
166 applications for interns, but 93 percent of the
applications had negative outcomes with only 11 accepting
positions out of 57 offers. A significant portion declined;
23 candidates cited lack of pay, while others noted the
lack of housing, or stated other reasons. He calculated
that 40 percent of people that the department extended
offers to declined due to lack of pay. He discovered that
other states and cities were paying interns between $2.2
thousand to $4.2 thousand monthly. He shared that Ms.
Mills, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division began her
career with the department as an intern and was now in
leadership. The number of law school graduates had
decreased dramatically over the last decade by roughly 10
thousand fewer each year. He believed that the department
needed to pay interns to remain competitive. He reiterated
that the department's ranks were full of prior interns and
felt that it was a necessary recruitment tool. He deferred
to Cori Mills to discuss the situation in the Civil
Division.
1:56:38 PM
CORI MILLS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, echoed Mr. Skidmore's sentiments. She
relayed that the civil division had a 40 percent
declination rate citing pay or housing, which reduced the
intern pool to 1L or first year law students. She detailed
that 2L or second year students could appear in court. In
addition, 2L students were more likely to return as full
time employees. She elucidated that ivy league schools
students received stipends and were more likely to view the
internship as an experience or vacation. The department
wanted to attract interns from state universities that had
law programs that were more applicable to Alaskas needs.
She observed that a paid internship broadened the pool of
interns.
Mr. Taylor agreed with Ms. Mills and added that the prior
year's interns were mostly from ivy league schools, which
was positive except many were 1L. The department was trying
to attract 2L students that were seriously considering
starting a career and moving to Alaska.
1:59:27 PM
Representative Ortiz thought it made a lot of sense. He
asked what the minimum qualifications were to apply. Mr.
Taylor responded that the programs were summer programs
designed for interning between school years and the minimum
requirement was students had to complete the first year of
law school.
Co-Chair Johnson asked how the number of 58 interns was
derived. Mr. Skidmore responded that 23 of the positions
were for the criminal division derived from how many
positions each of the district attorney offices had around
the state. He addressed Representative Ortiz question and
elaborated that the criminal division only wanted 2L
students in the paid program because the interns were
authorized to appear in court. The range was associated
with PCN's for 2L's that was already established in
statute. He deferred to Ms. Mills to discuss the civil
division's request.
Ms. Mills added that she had examined prior internship
programs and DOLs current capacity to supervise interns.
She expounded that the civil division program included
externships. The division had approximately 25 openings in
the summer and 10 spots available for semester externships
for 2L candidates. Both Mr. Skidmore and Ms. Mills
emphasized that 1L students were welcome, but they would
not be paid and were only awarded a small stipend.
Representative Galvin stressed that it was the best
recruitment plan she had seen in the House Finance
Committee among the departments that were experiencing
staff shortages. She commended the testifiers and thought
that it was a great model for others. She had heard many
different ideas from other departments on how to address
shortfalls. She mentioned teaching and nursing staff
recruitment in the state, with a cost of over $20 million
on recruitment that had not changed anything. She
calculated that the cost for each intern was roughly $25
thousand each summer. She asked whether she was correct.
2:04:49 PM
Ms. Mills responded that the housing stiped was for the
entire summer. The airfare and the housing stipend were
both one-time expenses.
Representative Galvin wondered what the total per intern
was. Mr. Skidmore responded that the way it works was that
the airfare and housing were one-time items, and the range
was displayed. He preferred to provide the committee with a
spreadsheet that broke down the costs for a complete
answer.
Representative Tomaszewski noted that his question had just
been answered and he commended the testifiers on the intern
program.
Representative Coulombe asked how many intern positions
already existed and how many were new positions. Mr.
Skidmore responded that in the prior year he was looking
for a total of 23 but had only been successful in
recruiting 11. He indicated he was not adding more, but
because the interns were not paid previously the department
lacked PCN's (position control numbers). Representative
Coulombe understood that the goal was for 58 PCN's. Mr.
Skidmore answered in the affirmative. He did not believe
the number would be reached immediately, but it was the
future goal.
2:08:27 PM
Representative Hannan asked if the interns were divided by
about 60 percent for the civil division and 40 percent for
the criminal division. Ms. Mills responded that split was
roughly 50/50 but the criminal division offered 10
externships over a semester.
Attorney General Taylor interjected that many interns were
trained for civil work and could work immediately. However,
the prosecutorial side was a very different experience, and
it took training and a hands on approach due to the
interns' lack of experience.
Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 8 titled "Criminal Division
Mission:"
To seek justice, promote public safety, and further
public respect for government through prompt,
effective, and compassionate prosecution of cases.
Mr. Skidmore examined slide 9 titled "Criminal Division
FY 2025 Operating Budget Changes
Change In Sexual Assault Consent Laws: $2,328.6
Unrestricted General Funds (UGF), 12 Permanent Full-
Time Positions (PFT)
Training: $100.0 UGF
Increased Drug Prosecutions: $397.5 UGF, 2 PFT
Six Investigators: $1,142.9 UGF, 6 PFT
Investigative Grand Jury Needs: $502.4 UGF, 3 PFT
Mr. Skidmore continued to slide 10 titled "Change in Sexual
Assault Consent Laws
Staffing
Six Attorney 5
Nome DAO, Anchorage DAO, Fairbanks DAO, Special
Prosecutions: Juneau, Bethel, Anchorage
Two Paralegal 3
Anchorage DAO and Special Prosecutions
Two Law Office Assistant 2
Kenai and Special Prosecutions
Two Administrative Assistants
Juneau/ Anchorage
Previous bill passed without fiscal notes
Defense agencies received funding last year:
($3,128.9 UGF received by Office of Public
Advocacy and Public Defender Agency)
Mr. Skidmore explained that HB 325 (Domestic
Violence/Sexual Offenses/Consent - Chapter 44 SLA 22 -
07/28/2022) expanded some of the conduct that qualified as
sexual assault. He was requesting a total of $2.5 million
as broken down on the slide.
2:11:55 PM
Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 11 titled "Training:"
Two types of Academies:
Prosecutor:
Two weeks substantive law/trial advocacy
Held twice a year
20 attendees
Three-five trainers
Paralegal:
40 hours recorded modules
40 hours in person
Held once a year
13-15 attendees
Two trainers
Mr. Skidmore emphasized the importance of training. He
stressed that about 60 percent of the division's
prosecutors had two or less years of experience.
Representative Ortiz asked if there was a significant
increase in inexperience over the past five years. Mr.
Skidmore responded in the affirmative and expounded that
the percentage of inexperience was greater than in the past
due to turnover, therefore, training was critically
important. He delineated that the academies had been funded
via unexpended money due to high vacancy rates, but since
recruitment had been better additional funding was needed.
2:14:27 PM
Representative Stapp cited slide 6 and thought there was a
mathematical error of $60 thousand. Mr. Skidmore replied
that he wanted to provide the spreadsheet that broke down
all costs that included administration costs.
Co-Chair Johnson noted that Representative Cronk was the
chair of the DOL subcommittee.
Mr. Skidmore turned to slide 12 titled "Increased Drug
Prosecutions
Increased Need for Prosecution
Amount seized increased
Deaths increased
Number of cases increased
Drug Trafficking = Public Safety Danger
Two PFT:
Prosecutor
Paralegal
Mr. Skidmore asserted that there was a 300 percent increase
in seized fentanyl in the prior year in the state amounting
to 87 kilograms. The number of fentanyl overdose deaths had
increased by 135 percent since 2018. He reviewed slide 13
titled "increased Drug Prosecutions:"
65% increase in cases charged since 2018
+250 active cases
125 awaiting screening
Two prosecutors currently =
125 active per attorney
75 screening per attorney
Mr. Skidmore indicated that the national average suggested
that 90 to 100 cases per attorney was the norm.
Representative Tomaszewski asked what happened to the
fentanyl that was seized. Mr. Skidmore responded that the
drugs were ultimately destroyed.
2:19:21 PM
Representative Hannan pointed to the chart on slide 13 of
charged, indicted, and convicted prosecutions from 2018 to
2023. She presumed that a charge from 2018 was not also
indicted and convicted in the same year. She asked for an
estimate of how long it would take between initial charge
and conviction. Mr. Skidmore responded that it was rare for
someone to be charged and convicted in the same year. He
interpreted the charts by calculating the difference
between the cases charged and solved in a given year. He
conveyed that there should be an equilibrium of cases
between the number of new cases and the number of resolved
cases each year or the system becomes problematic.
Representative Tomaszewski asked if a plea agreement was
represented as convicted. Mr. Skidmore responded in the
affirmative.
2:22:38 PM
Mr. Skidmore continued on slide 14 titled "Investigators:"
Most prosecutor's offices in lower 48 have
investigators
Follow up needed for domestic violence/sexual assault
Serve witnesses
Six PFT Throughout the State:
Special Prosecutions
Fairbanks
Palmer
Kenai
Southeast
Bethel
Mr. Skidmore continued on slide 15 titled "Investigative
Grand Jury:"
Alaska Constitution Article 1 § 8
Recent increased demand
Not criminal cases
Law
Constitution
Statutes
Regulations
Court Rules
Practice and Policy
Facts/evidence
How to obtain evidence
Harm, if any
Three PFT:
Prosecutor
Paralegal
Law Office Assistant
Mr. Skidmore elaborated that the recent increased demand
for investigative grand juries created problems for the
criminal division that was focused primarily on prosecution
and investigative grand juries was not limited to
prosecution. Therefore, a prosecutor had to learn about the
area of the law and associated information as listed on the
slide, which all took significant time away and prevented
the criminal division from its primary focus of
prosecution. The division was requesting a prosecutor
position solely for Investigative Grand Jury requests. He
relayed that discussions were underway regarding the proper
placement within the department for the prosecutor
position.
2:26:17 PM
Representative Ortiz asked for a brief definition of what
an investigative grand jury was, how was the demand
generated, and why was the increased demand happening
currently versus in prior years. Mr. Skidmore replied that
per the Alaska Constitution Article 1, Section 8 stated
that if someone was charged with a felony it had to be
presented to a Grand Jury first. However, the section also
references an investigative grand jury, which was primarily
envisioned for correctional facilities to determine whether
or not the jails were operating appropriately and
effectively. He relayed an incident concerning Governor
Sheffield where an investigative grand jury could result in
indictments. However, his concern was focused on the
requests that were completely investigative in nature like
looking into the Office of Children's Services (OCS). He
delineated that grand juries were part of the constitution
crafted in 1959 but once the ombudsman office was created
in 1964, state government operational complaints could be
heard through the ombudsman versus the investigative grand
jury resulting in a decrease in grand jury requests.
However, in the previous several years there was a marked
increase in citizens requests. He reiterated that the
situation had become problematic for the division, and it
pulled staff from prosecutorial work.
2:31:01 PM
Representative Ortiz asked about the number of requests for
investigative grand juries that occurred in the prior year.
Mr. Skidmore answered that there were seven requests.
Co-Chair Edgmon was temporarily passed the gavel to chair
the meeting.
Representative Galvin recalled from a prior meeting that
the Office of the Ombudsman was requesting more support for
a significant case load. She wanted to evaluate where the
work needed to happen. She wondered if there was a general
theme in the investigative cases and whether the ombudsman
could adjudicate the same cases. Mr. Skidmore responded
that some of the complaints were directed towards the
Ombudsman's Office. A citizen's had the right to request
that another body investigate the issue. He shared that the
division's process was to determine whether the complaint
qualified as affecting public welfare or safety and if so,
it was appropriate for a Grand Jury investigation. The
ombudsman focused on individual cases but if the issue
impacted the public at large, it could be appropriate for
both the ombudsman and an investigative grand jury.
2:34:39 PM
Representative Hannan shared that she had served once on a
criminal grand jury that met once a week for a period of
months. She understood that an investigative grand jury was
comprised of a panel of citizens and that the state was
still struggling to impanel juries that had the time
commitment and skills to sit on an investigative grand
jury. Mr. Skidmore replied that grand juries were focused
on conduct in their jurisdiction and did not travel within
the state according to judicial rules. He agreed that there
was a concern about how much the investigative requests
would affect impaneling criminal grand juries, which was
why the evaluation process was so important. Representative
Hannan asked if the purpose could be served by beefing up
the ombudsman and sanctioning more investigative authority
and employees. Mr. Skidmore responded that the ombudsman
could be empowered to do more but citizens were still
entitled to an investigative grand jury and should not be
denied the opportunity even with another avenue.
Representative Josephson wondered how long the cycle of
increased requests would last. Mr. Skidmore was not able to
determine if the increased requests was a trend or a phase.
2:39:31 PM
Representative Coulombe asked if the positions were in the
requested three positions that were in the base budget. Mr.
Skidmore responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Mills continued the presentation on slide 16 titled
Civil Division Mission
To provide high-quality legal services that protect
the human, financial, and natural resources of the
state.
Ms. Mills advanced to slide 17 titled "Civil division
FY 2025 Operating Budget Changes
Civil Division Restructuring: $45.0 UGF
Personnel for Child Protection Section Fairbanks:
$176.2 UGF, $176.2 Interagency Receipts (I/A), 2 PFT
Expand Consumer Protection Unit: $598.7 Statutory
Designated Program Receipts (SDPR), 3 PFT
Replace Unavailable Interagency Receipt Authority for
Regulation Reviews: (fund source change) +$448.0 UGF,
-$448.0 I/A
Increase for Statehood Defense (FY25-FY27): $2,018.0
UGF IncT
Ms. Mills explained that the civil division budget was
about half funded by interagency receipts and the other
half came from the General Fund (GF). The division's budget
had 15 components, which created many administrative
burdens and budgeting inflexibility. The division proposed
to decrease the number of components to 5. Ms. Mills
continued to slide 18 titled "Civil Division
Post-Restructure
Protective Legal Services & Support
Human Services
Child Protection
Commercial, Fair Business, and Child Support
Regulatory Affairs and Public Advocacy
Agency Advice & Representation
Torts, Workers' Compensation, and Corrections
Labor and State Affairs
Public Corporations and Governmental Services
Resource development & infrastructure
Environmental
Transportation
Oil and Gas
Natural Resources
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Opinions, Appeals, and Ethics
Information and Project Support
Professional Development and Public Service
Special Litigation
Legislation, Regulations, and Legislative
Research
Legal Support Services
Paralegal: Protective Legal Services
Paralegal: Government Services, Resource
Development and Infrastructure, Agency Advice and
Representation
Law Office Assistants
Ms. Mills identified the Legal Support Services component
and elaborated that the by including all the paralegal
support and law office assistant support it realigned
resources to allow all law office support to help out on a
breadth of sections within the division versus dedicating
the support staff to a specific section. The support
services supported all sections, and an added benefit was
it created more backup support if someone left the
division.
2:45:20 PM
Representative Galvin deemed that some components in the
new structure appeared to be taking on much more work. She
wondered if the division was reducing staff or was it a new
way to reorganize the division's support structure. Ms.
Mills responded that there was no reduction in staff, but
it was simply a reorganization to reduce administrative
burdens, streamline systems, and create efficiencies. The
number of sections remained the same.
Representative Hannan asked whether all the statehood
defense would be included in resource development.
Co-Chair Johnson noted that there was an upcoming section
on statehood defense later on in the presentation and
delayed the answer.
Ms. Mills continued on slide 19 titled "expand child
protection
TWO FULL-TIME FAIRBANKS PERSONNEL
Attorney 4, range 24
Paralegal 1, range 14
ADDRESSING CASELOADS
Reduce burden on Fairbanks attorneys by distributing
significant workload
Improve retention and attorney scheduling balance
Improved coordination with Office of Children's
Services
MAKING A DIFFERENCE
Positive impact on children, foster families, and
parents
Ms. Mills expounded that child protection was the largest
section. The caseloads in child protection should be around
60 to 70 while the Alaska was 90 to 100 on average.
Caseload work varied depending on what parts of the state
the cases were located in. She stressed that attorney
burnout was high due to districts where the caseloads were
demanding. Ms. Mills discussed slide 20 titled "Expand
Consumer Protection Unit (CPU)
VALUABLE SERVICES TO THE STATE
Over $25 million in Civil penalties in five years
$1.3 million in restitution to consumers
Nearly $100 million for opioid abatement
History of CPU
Expansion in 2018 resulted in significant increase in
number of consumer cases filed
Currently, 17 investigations unable to be worked on
due to lack of staff
THREE FULL-TIME ANCHORAGE PERSONNEL
Attorney 5, range 25
Investigator 2, range 16
Paralegal 2, range 16
Ms. Mills reported that the request was not for GF but
requested increased authority to spend Statutory Designated
Program Receipts (SDPR), from an existing account that was
filled with funds from consumer protection settlements.
Some of the settlements required the settlement award to be
expended on consumer protections efforts that amounted to 5
percent of the fund while the remaining 95 percent went to
GF.
2:51:34 PM
Ms. Mills moved to slide 21 titled "Regulation Review Fund
Source Change
+$448.0 UGF/-$448.0 I/A
Removes the outdated chargeback system
Allows the Department of Law to meet the current cost
for regulation reviews.
Ms. Mills offered that the regulation review fund source
change made sense philosophically because DOL was
statutorily mandated to ensure that all agency regulations
did not conflict with statutes or the constitution and
acted independently of agencies.
Co-Chair Johnson asked if DOL was charging back to the
departments in the prior system. Ms. Mills responded in the
affirmative, but it was based on a formula average over
time rather than the actual number of hours spent on a
specific department. Representative Josephson deduced that
the regulation review was exclusively a state expense. Ms.
Mills answered in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson asked for confirmation that the
review examined the smallest most benign regulation. Ms.
Mills responded in the affirmative and also ensured that
the procedural steps were followed in the formation of the
regulation.
Ms. Mills highlighted slide 22 titled "Statehood Defense
Increase
Asserting the state's ownership and management rights
relating to land and natural resources, protect the
responsible development of the state's resources, and
defend Alaska's sovereignty.
Issues relating to federal rulemaking challenges
relating to resource management.
Support for navigability and other matters of access
across the state.
Ms. Mills reminded the committee that the funding was a
multi-year request. She advanced to slide 23 titled
Statehood Defense Current Multi-Year Appropriations." She
pointed to the chart that depicted the appropriations from
FY 2021 through FY 2024. She expounded that the current
proposal was for $2 million each year as a "temporary
increment" and the money would not be included in the base
budget.
Representative Stapp asked what the state's record was on
the statehood defense. Ms. Mills noted that a list of cases
was included in the backup (titled Multi-Year Statehood
Defense/State's Rights Funding." dated January 17, 2024)
(copy on file) She replied that only one or two cases had
concluded. However, she listed some successes and indicated
that most were pending or on appeal.
2:58:22 PM
Ms. Mills cited Representative Hannan's earlier question
regarding the source of the funding. She reported that the
initial appropriation was outside of the regular budget
structure.
Mr. Taylor interjected that statehood defense did spill
over from litigation to appeals.
Co-Chair Edgmon pondered whether there was a need to have
statehood defense defined in law. He did not find a
definition in regulations or statute. He saw a valid need
for it, but the issues were always open-ended, ill defined,
and a work in progress. He suggested that a definition was
necessary. Mr. Taylor agreed with Co-Chair Edgmon's
comments. He reported that the department attempted to act
transparently and cautiously in its approach avoiding
controversy and focused the funding responsibly on
statehood defense. Co-Chair Edgmon asked if the discretion
DOL applied to statehood defense was not spilling into a
current subsistence case. Mr. Taylor responded that there
was no spill over.
Ms. Mills interjected that she had to personally approve
what cases were included and determined that they fit
within the parameters set forth by the legislature. Co-
Chair Edgmon believed that the funding was merely an
appropriation line item and lacked parameters. Ms. Mills
responded that the current funding was a temporary
increment but in prior years parameters was included. She
offered that the intent would still apply for the defense
funding.
3:03:26 PM
Representative Josephson cited Mr. Taylor's remarks
regarding avoiding controversial issues. He inquired
whether all of the defense work was considered
controversial. Mr. Taylor acknowledged that the issues were
contentious, but the department attempted to stay within
the parameters, and it would not be overly controversial
and maintain transparency.
Representative Ortiz asked whether the resources used by
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for R.S. 2477
[Rights-of-Way] to move litigation forward came from DOL.
Ms. Mills replied that DNR had gotten funds for their
expertise to help with litigation. The DOL funds were used
specifically for the legal services associated with the
litigation and expert advice. Representative Ortiz
requested a brief summary of the issue. Ms. Mills answered
that an old mining statute allowed for development of
public access through use and the state could assert
ownership as a public right-of-way. The law was repealed
therefore, historical evidence of use of the area was
needed and many were old mining trails like the Iditarod
Trail and the Dalton Highway both originated as an RS 2477.
Mr. Taylor made closing remarks.
3:08:12 PM
AT EASE
3:09:13 PM
RECONVENED
^OVERVIEW: ALASKA COURT SYSTEM FY 25 BUDGET
3:09:54 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, introduced the PowerPoint presentation House
Finance Committee Alaska Court System Overview" dated
February 29, 2024 (copy on file). He briefly reviewed
slides 2 through 4
Slide 2 titled " Mission Statement:
The mission of the Alaska Court System is to provide
an accessible and impartial forum for the just
resolution of all cases that come before it, and to
decide such cases in accordance with the law,
expeditiously and with integrity.
Mr. Wooliver moved to slide 3 titled "FY 25 State of Alaska
Operating Budget Request All Funding Sources." He noted
that the Judicial Branch made up 1.5 percent of overall
state spending. He proceeded to slide 5 titled "Alaska
Court System FY 24 Operating Budget Appropriation that
showed the majority of the budget was expended on Trial
Courts. Mr. Wooliver moved to slide 5 titled "FY 24
Authorized Budget Overiew All Budget Units" and reported
that most of the budget spend was on personnel, facilities,
and contractual obligations that comprised 98 percent of
the budget.
Co-Chair Johnson asked Mr. Wooliver to explain why the
Judicial Branch budget was part of the governor's budget
request. Mr. Wooliver responded that traditionally, the
Judicial, Executive, and Legislative Branches of government
were all in the same operating budget. The Judicial Branch
budget was submitted via the Office of Management and
Budget. The Judicial Branches budget request was directed
to the Legislature as the appropriating body.
3:13:20 PM
Mr. Wooliver continued on slide 6 titled "Distinguishing
Characteristics of the Alaska Court System
State Funded No County or Municipal Courts
Unified Judiciary
Mr. Wooliver noted that Alaska's entire justice system was
the most unified justice system in the country, which was
very efficient.
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 7 titled "Factors Impacting
Workloads:"
Population
Police
Economy
Statutory Changes
Recovery from Pandemic Era
Staff Vacancies
Mr. Wooliver acknowledged that the state's demographics
were changing via losing population and aging, which
changed things in the state. An aging population
experienced fewer crimes committed and a shift in the types
of cases that came before the courts. While other
departments in the justice system were experiencing
retention issues it also impacted how cases moved
throughout the courts. He turned to slide 8 titled "Vacancy
Rates FY 2021 to FY 2023:"
FY25 Personal Services Underfunding = 7.3%
Temporary and non-permanent positions (including most
grant-funded positions) are not included in vacancy
calculations
Judges are not included as hiring is not within the
control of the Alaska Court System
Mr. Wooliver relayed that the Judiciary had a high vacancy
rate of 13.3 percent but had dropped to 10.6 percent and
was budgeted for a 7.3 percent vacancy rate. He credited
the decrease to recruiting efforts. Mr. Wooliver continued
to slide 9 titled "Recruitment Efforts
Participated in six job fairs held in Anchorage,
Fairbanks, and Juneau during 2023
Social Media Outreach
Spotlight "Jobs of the Week" on Alaska Court System
Facebook page
Direct outreach with Facebook groups such as the
Military Spouses' page
HR Department is exercising flexibility with not
requiring use of on-line application platforms and
accepting applications and resumés via email
Employee Referral Program Successful referrals yield
three paid days of leave
Mr. Wooliver commented that the deputy director of the
Judiciary's Human Resources Division was a military spouse
and her efforts advertising on Facebook to military spouses
helped find 7 more new hires.
3:18:38 PM
Mr. Wooliver moved to slide 10 titled "Improved Recruitment
Responses:
In 2022, the average number of applications received
for each open position totaled 5.3
In 2023, the average number of applications received
for each open position totaled 6.2
Mr. Wooliver addressed to slide 12 titled "Employees in
Transition:"
With aging workforce future retirements may continue
to increase (as of January 2024 payroll, 37% of the
court's non-judge workforce is age 50+)
Separations are declining and the number of exit
survey responses citing pay as a reason for separation
have declined
Internal Transfers impact the vacancy rate (current
employee accepts a new position, then the vacated
position must be recruited)
Mr. Wooliver listed the 3 reasons for employment changes:
retirements, separations, and internal transfers. He
emphasized that although incremental, the Judicial Branch
was successful in recruitment efforts. He reviewed slide 12
titled "FY 24 Court System Employees 776 Authorized
Positions
Primarily Clerical Employees
Five Supreme Court Justices
Four Court of Appeal Judges
45 Superior Court Judges
20 District Court Judges
39 Magistrate Judges
Mr. Wooliver indicated that 113 employees were judicial
officers, and the rest were primarily clerical workers
since the system was clerical based with exception of the
employees that worked in administration.
3:21:41 PM
Mr. Wooliver moved to slide 13 titled "FY24 Court Locations
& Authorized Positions by District." He offered that the
employees were spread out over 38 different communities,
but most employees were in the third judicial district. The
entire second judicial district only had 34 employees
[north and west areas of the state].
Representative Galvin noted that there were two districts
with one and zero Appellate Court Judges. Mr. Wooliver
replied that appeals was a statewide court. There was only
one Appellate Court.
Mr. Wooliver continued on slide 14 titled "Contacts with
Alaskans in 2023
92,454 new cases filed (trial and appellate courts)
5,532 contacts thru the Family Law Self-Help Center
3,447 Alaskans served on juries
7,741,111 visits to the court's website
2,399,429 CourtView searches
22,410 online payments made
393 therapeutic court participants
Tens of thousands of on-line court forms accessed or
downloaded
Mr. Wooliver highlighted slide 15 titled "Trial Court
Caseloads FY22 vs. FY23
FY23 Trial Court Case Filings Totaled 91,953
Down 13.8 % from FY22 Total Trial Court Filings
FY23 Superior Court Cases Totaled 21,365
Down 3.8% from FY22 Superior Court Case Totals
FY23 District Court Cases Totaled 70,588
Down 16.4% from FY22 District Court Case Totals
Minor Offenses for FY23 totaled 12,892 fewer than in
FY22
Mr. Wooliver pointed to the decrease in the caseloads in
the current year but nothing in a budget was impacted by
the decrease comprised of relatively minor changes. He
noted that the decrease in minor offenses was comprised of
Fish and Game tickets and traffic violations.
3:24:29 PM
Mr. Wooliver continued to slide 16 titled "FY 25
Continuation Budget Request (UGF):
$957,100 Software Maintenance & Licensing
$473,900 Mediators, Interpreters, Visitors
$448,000 Facility Maintenance & Operations
$444,500 Therapeutic Courts Treatment,
Counseling, Urinalyses, Juneau Mental
Health Court*, Competency Calendar
$252,600 Security Screening Costs
$38,200 Appellate Court Travel
$2,614,300 Total Increased FY25 UGF Requested
Mr. Wooliver related that the budget request increment was
attributed to increased costs of operating the system,
which were listed on the slide.
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 17 titled "FY 25
Guardianship Monitoring Initiative New
Alaska is facing a guardianship crisis due to OPA
refusing to accept new cases based on their high
caseloads.
Newly hired professional guardians or family guardians
will benefit from the monitoring program to ensure
they are fulfilling the protective services role for
which they are appointed.
The Alaska Court System is requesting $417,000 to hire
three positions to assist guardians and monitor their
compliance with statutorily required reports.
Mr. Wooliver commented that the request for the three
positions did not solve the crisis but benefitted the
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) by allowing more people to
serve in the guardianship role.
Mr. Wooliver continued to slide 18 titled "FY 25 Operating
Budget Requests (Non-UGF)
$525,000 Federal Grant Receipt Authority
$178,300 Mental Health Trust Authority
$125,000 Interagency Grant Receipts
$828,300 Total FY25 Non-UGF Increase
Mr. Wooliver concluded the presentation.
3:29:49 PM
Representative Coulombe cited slide 17 and asked if the
staff would be monitoring guardians or helping friends and
family become guardians. Mr. Wooliver replied that it would
be both. He added that every guardian had to submit an
annual report to the court. The monitors reviewed every
report and ensured the guardians were doing what was
required on behalf of the ward. In addition, they assist
individual guardians with their questions and paperwork.
Representative Coulombe asked how many were currently
employed in the position. Mr. Wooliver answered that there
were currently 2 positions federally funded via an expiring
grant that covered Anchorage, Homer, Kenai, and Bethel. The
third position would allow coverage in all courts in the
state.
Representative Josephson asked about the Palmer Courthouse.
Mr. Wooliver noted that the Palmer Courthouse was the
priority Capital Budget request totaling $35.7 million. The
only place where increased population was an issue was in
the Mat-Su. The area needed new judges, but the courthouse
was completely full. The Judiciary wanted to add more
superior court judges in the Mat-Su and the only way to
accomplish it was through a new courthouse.
Representative Ortiz asked if the item was included in the
governor's capital budget. Mr. Wooliver answered in the
negative but added that it was included and submitted in
Judiciary's capital budget request.
3:34:34 PM
Co-Chair Johnson reviewed the agenda for the following
day's meeting.
HB 268 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 270 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFIN - FY 25 Budget OverviewAlaska Court System 2 29 2024.pdf |
HFIN 2/29/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 268 HB 270 |
| HFIN Law FY25 Budget Presentation 2-29-24.pdf |
HFIN 2/29/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| LAW Multi Year Appropriation Anticipation as of 1.17.24.pdf |
HFIN 2/29/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| HFIN Law Overview Follow up to HFIN on 2-29 030524.pdf |
HFIN 2/29/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 268 |